Industrial Disputes Act; Section 33(C)(2) Only Applies If Entitlement Is Established Through Undisputed Evidence: Bombay HC
Bombay Excessive Court docket: A single decide bench of the Bombay Excessive Court docket (Aurangabad Bench), consisting of Justice Prafulla Khubalkar dismissed a problem to a labour court docket award that supplied time beyond regulation wages with curiosity to retired staff. The court docket held that an staff’ proper to time beyond regulation wages was a pre-existing statutory proper beneath Part 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, and that it may be enforced via Part 33(c )(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Background
Three former staff of the Maharashtra Electrical energy Distribution Firm Restricted (MSEDCL) had been holding the put up of ‘Artisan A’. They retired in 2011-2012. Earlier than retiring, they’d labored time beyond regulation for a sure interval however had not obtained any wages for the additional hours, regardless of it being sanctioned by the chief engineer. Notably, they’d all the time been paid time beyond regulation wages prior to now.
After their retirement, they approached the labour court docket beneath Part 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Act’). Part 33(c )(2) of the Act permits a workman to get better advantages from an employer if there’s a pre-existing proper to the identical. They argued that they had been owed Rs.6,12,900 in complete, with 18% curiosity.
The labour court docket discovered that the workers had a transparent pre-existing proper to the claimed quantities. Thus, in 2017, the court docket allowed their software and awarded them the time beyond regulation pay with 12% curiosity.
Aggrieved, MSEDCL filed a writ software difficult this order.
Arguments
MSEDCL argued that the labour court docket’s order was unlawful as the workers didn’t have any pre-existing proper to time beyond regulation wages. They argued that Part 33(c )(2) of the Act was solely restricted to executing pre-established rights and never for figuring out new rights. Additional, they submitted an inner round which capped time beyond regulation at 75 hours, and likewise excluded ‘Artisan A’ staff from claiming any time beyond regulation wages. Citing Vaibhav Laxman Suravkar v. Extremely Drytech Engineering (Writ Petition No. 5460 of 2003), and Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner (Civil Attraction No. 813 of 2022), they argued that for the reason that entitlement itself was disputed, the Labour Court docket had no jurisdiction beneath Part 33(C)(2).
Alternatively, the workers argued that the entitlement was not in dispute. They offered a number of paperwork that confirmed that the government engineer had sanctioned the time beyond regulation wages. They argued that the proper was already established, and the one challenge was the implementation of this proper. Thus, they submitted that Part 33(C)(2) was the right treatment. Additionally they identified that in any case, Part 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, supplied a statutory proper to obtain time beyond regulation pay.
Court docket’s Reasoning
Firstly, the court docket famous that Part 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, explicitly recognises a statutory proper to time beyond regulation wages at twice the abnormal fee. The court docket held that this provision is a pre-existing proper, and offers the idea for the workers’ claims beneath Part 33(c )(2). Thus, the court docket dominated that the labour court docket had jurisdiction beneath Part 33(c )(2).
Secondly, the court docket famous that the declare earlier than the labour court docket was to not determine whether or not any time beyond regulation pay was due in precept; as a substitute, it was about executing the fee that was already sanctioned by an officer. Thus, the court docket held that Part 33(c )(2) is the suitable provision to invoke, as there isn’t a query of figuring out a brand new entitlement and it is just about executing the sanctioned fee. The court docket additionally distinguished the info of Vaibhav Laxman Suravkar, holding that the authorities had not sanctioned any fee in that case.
Thirdly, the court docket mentioned the case of Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner. The court docket famous that in Bombay Chemical Industries, there was a factual dispute about employment itself, and thus the Supreme Court docket discovered that there was no jurisdiction beneath Part 33(c )(2). Right here, the court docket defined that the info of employment, time beyond regulation work or the sanctioned quantities weren’t disputed, and solely the ultimate approval step was. Thus, the court docket held that Bombay Chemical didn’t apply.
Lastly, the court docket defined that Part 33(c )(2) applies when an entitlement may be proven via undisputed proof, like sanctioned payments, and many others. Because the government engineer had already sanctioned the quantities, the court docket held that MSEDCL couldn’t withhold fee.
Thus, the court docket dismissed the writ petition and held that the labour court docket has jurisdiction beneath Part 33(c )(2) of the commercial Disputes Act, 1947
Selected: 13-06-2025
Impartial Quotation: 2025:BHC-AUG:15061
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. U. S. Malte
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. G. N. Kulkarni
